There have been three significant developments at Westminster this week: a Commons vote that the Liberal Democrats are presenting as a major breakthrough, a peerages list that raises questions of political balance, and renewed concerns about the limited powers Parliament holds to scrutinise international treaties.

We begin with the Ten Minute Rule Bill proposed by Liberal Democrat MP Dr Al Pinkerton, intended to create a duty on the Government to negotiate entry to the EU Customs Union. The motion succeeded only on a tied vote, resolved by Deputy Speaker Caroline Nokes using her casting vote. This was not a vote on the Bill’s text, nor does it compel Government action: it simply grants leave for the Bill to be introduced and placed in the Private Members’ Bill queue, where its prospects are uncertain.

We then turn to the latest appointments to the House of Lords. Labour gains the largest share, and the Liberal Democrats secure five new peers, while Reform UK receives none—an outcome that is increasingly difficult to justify given Reform’s parliamentary and local government presence and their sustained lead in the opinion polls.  We also consider the implications of the anticipated hereditary peer departures on Lords committee work and scrutiny.

We also preview the upcoming Lord Speaker contest between Lord Forsyth and Baroness Bull. Ruth chaired the official hustings earlier this week, so she discusses the issues and questions that were raised.   

We talk to Lord Goldsmith, Chair of the International Agreements Committee, about treaty scrutiny. Lord Goldsmith argues that the current 21-day scrutiny period under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act is inadequate and overly dependent on Government control of parliamentary time. When in opposition Labour spokespersons agreed, but now they are in Government Ministers think the system is satisfactory.

Finally, the programme closes with an update on the Assisted Dying Bill’s slow progress in the Lords and the potential reputational consequences if proceedings continue to stall.

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week we focus on the Hansard Society’s new book, Britain Votes 2024, which brings together a powerhouse team of leading political scientists - including Professors Sir John Curtice, Phil Cowley and Tim Bale - and many other distinguished experts to dissect every facet of a record-breaking general election. The 2024 contest delivered the largest post-war swing, a Labour landslide, and the Conservatives’ lowest-ever parliamentary representation. This volume, a special edition of our Parliamentary Affairs journal, explains how and why such a dramatic turnaround came about.

We talk to the editors Alistair Clark, Louise Thompson and Stuart Wilks-Hee to unpack how Labour won a landslide on just a third of the vote, why the 2024 contest shattered so many electoral records, and what this says about the resilience – or fragility – of UK democracy. We explore the extraordinary disproportionality of the result, the historically low turnout, and the sense of voters “fishing around” for alternatives in a system under strain.

Britain Votes 2024: The 2024 UK General Election is available now from all good bookshops and online retailers. Podcast listeners can get 30% off via the Oxford University Press website using the discount code: AUFLY30

This week we also discuss another turbulent week in Westminster, from the Budget fallout and the sudden resignation of OBR chair Richard Hughes to the unusual constitutional power Parliament holds over his post via the Treasury Committee. We explore the politics of abstention versus rebellion inside a government with a huge majority, and what to expect as the Finance Bill and a separate National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pension Contributions) Bill reach Parliament before Christmas.

We also examine the afterlives of ex-MPs: Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s move from Labour to the Greens, the flow of former Conservatives into Reform, and what these shifts say about deeper tensions on the right. Plus, we dig into a row over local democracy as the government delays new mayoral elections in parts of Sussex, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Hampshire, prompting cross-party accusations that Labour is “cancelling democracy” and confusion about whether other local contests will still go ahead.

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s Budget week, so we look at what happens after the Chancellor sits down and how the days announcements are converted into the Finance Bill. We speak to Lord Ricketts, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, about whether Parliament is prepared to scrutinise the “dynamic alignment” with EU laws that may emerge from the Government’s reset with Brussels. And we explore the latest twists in the assisted dying bill story, where a marathon battle is looming in the New Year after the Government allocated 10 additional Friday sittings for its scrutiny.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

In this episode, we unpick a Budget Day thrown off course by an early OBR leak that overshadowed Rachel Reeves’ statement, gave Kemi Badenoch an unexpected advantage, and left MPs scrolling their phones rather than watching the chamber. But once the drama fades, the hard legislative work begins. MPs must first approve 101 Ways and Means resolutions before the Finance Bill can be presented. We explain the crucial 30-sitting-day deadline for getting the Finance Bill through Second Reading, and we demystify why, in Westminster-speak, scheduling that debate for “tomorrow” almost never means it will take place the next day.

We then turn to the new House of Lords report looking at the reset of the UK–EU relationship. Lord Ricketts, Chair of the European Affairs Committee, joins us to explain how “dynamic alignment” on food standards, carbon pricing, youth mobility and even defence loans could pull the UK closer to EU rules. He warns that Parliament – especially the Commons – has neither a plan nor the structures, expertise or capacity to keep track of the steady stream of technical agreements likely to emerge, raising familiar questions about whether “taking back control” has empowered ministers far more than parliamentarians. We also discuss what happens when a Lords committee cannot reach a consensus on a report, and whether such divisions may become more common in an age of polarisation.

Finally, the Government Chief Whip has announced a further 10 ten Friday sittings for consideration of the assisted dying bill in the New Year. We look at what this reveals about government neutrality, the prospects for filibustering, and when this parliamentary Session is really likely to end. We also look at the proposed new Lords inquiries on national resilience, domestic abuse, vaccination and numeracy, and examine the justice reforms floated in Sir Brian Leveson’s review, including the contentious suggestion that the right to a jury trial could be abolished in some cases.

___

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we look at the latest Covid Inquiry report addressing the lack of parliamentary scrutiny during the pandemic and the need for a better system for emergency law-making. With the Budget approaching, we explore how the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, might discipline ministers who announce policies outside Parliament and why a little-known motion could restrict debate on the Finance Bill. Sir David Beamish assesses whether the flood of amendments to the assisted dying bill risks a filibuster and raises constitutional questions. Finally, we hear from Marsha de Cordova MP and Sandro Gozi MEP on their work to reset UK–EU relations through the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

As the Covid Inquiry highlights how little parliamentary scrutiny many pandemic restrictions received, we look at the problems in the UK’s emergency law-making process and urge parliamentarians to develop a better system for the next crisis.

With the Budget looming, we explore how the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle MP, could discipline ministers who announce major policies outside Parliament (for example, changes to income tax…). We explain why an obscure technical motion might limit debate on the Finance Bill – the legislation that will implement Rachel Reeves’ tax plans – and why leading figures in the Government should steer well clear of using it.

The assisted dying bill is inching through its House of Lords committee stage. Our Lords procedural guru Sir David Beamish joins us to consider whether the huge volume of amendments proposed by Peers could threaten the bill’s progress. When does rigorous scrutiny become filibustering? And would it be unconstitutional for their Lordships to block the Bill?

Finally, we meet Marsha de Cordova MP and Sandro Gozi MEP, the parliamentarians quietly working to de-frost the UK–EU relationship through the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly which monitors and reports on our Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Brussels.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

This episode contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, we are joined by Lord Falconer, the Labour Peer steering the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill through the House of Lords. Although he has attempted to legislate for assisted dying several times before, this is the first occasion he is working with a bill that has already cleared the House of Commons. In a wide-ranging conversation, he explains why this issue has driven him for more than a decade and assesses the Bill’s prospects of becoming law.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

Lord Falconer sets out why he believes the current legal framework for assisted dying is “unfit for purpose” and argues that while the Lords should scrutinise the Bill thoroughly, it should not overturn a measure endorsed by elected MPs. He warns against attempts to filibuster the legislation and against adding so many safeguards that the system becomes impossible for terminally ill people to use.

The discussion tackles several of the Bill’s most contested provisions: the role of Coroners and Medical Examiners in reviewing assisted deaths; how mental capacity should be assessed; who should approve the drugs used in assisted dying; and whether an appeal process is needed for applicants who are refused. We also explore the number of delegated powers in the Bill, how an assisted dying service might operate in practice, and how it would be funded.

Lord Falconer also reflects on the parliamentary timetable. He is confident there is enough time for the Lords to complete their scrutiny and for legislative “ping-pong” between the Commons and the Lords to reconcile any changes to the text – and he predicts that most Peers will resist any attempt to stop the Bill through deliberate time-wasting.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ten years after the House of Commons Petitions Committee was created – does it actually work? Does it genuinely shift policy? Or is it an emotional release valve? In this special anniversary episode, we bring together four Chairs of the Petitions Committee – one current, three former – for a candid conversation about what happens after hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of people click “sign”.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

The House of Commons Petitions Committee is the place in Parliament where ordinary people set the agenda. Now, a decade after it was created, is it actually the most powerful pressure valve in UK politics?

In this 10th-anniversary episode we trace the origins of the Committee – from the early battles with government and the breakthrough on brain tumour research – to the Covid era when petitioning briefly became the country’s primary political participation channel. And we revisit the petitions that blindsided even the MPs in the room.

To mark ten years, the current Chair — and three former Chairs — answer directly:

• what really happens when a petition passes 100,000 signatures;

• which petitions genuinely changed government thinking;

• do ministers watch the queue of petitions nervously;

• should petitions now get votable time in the main Chamber;

• how the pandemic supercharged petition culture;

• why petitions debates are the most watched debates after PMQs; and

• whether petitions amplify the already-loud or give voice to the unheard.

This isn’t a theoretical seminar about “democracy”. This is the Committee inside Parliament where the public decides the agenda. After a decade, what’s the verdict?

____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Britain’s modern party system frays, we rewind 300+ years to Queen Anne’s reign to trace the messy, very human birth of Britain’s party politics in conversation with historian George Owers, author of Rage of Party. He charts how religion, war, and raw parliamentary management forged early party politics, as the Whigs and Tories hardened into recognisable parties. Parliament turned from an occasional royal event into a permanent institution, and the job that would later be called “Prime Minister” began to take shape through court craft and parliamentary number-crunching.

___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

___

The Glorious Revolution triggered one change that proved transformational: Parliament now had to sit, and sit often. The Monarch’s continental wars needed constant funding, and constant funding required annual Parliaments. That imperative created a new game: the Crown’s ministers had to manage two chambers increasingly organised along party lines, avoiding the dreaded scenario in which a single faction could “force the chamber” and dictate to the Monarch. Out of that pressure cooker evolved new techniques of parliamentary management: whipping, coalition-stitching, patronage-trading. The dark arts of parliamentary arithmetic were born in this crucible.

With Queen Anne’s death in 1714, the Hanoverian succession froze out suspected Jacobite sympathisers and handed the initiative to the Whigs. Over the following decade, Robert Walpole consolidated that advantage into something new: stable, one-party government under a single commanding figure. His mix of administrative grip, parliamentary mastery, and monarchical confidence is why he is widely counted as Britain’s first true Prime Minister.

Our conversation lands back in the present with a sobering parallel. If today’s House of Commons continues to splinter, tomorrow’s successful leaders may look less like top-down disciplinarians and more like Walpole: Commons operators who live in the tea room, count every vote, understand every constituency interest, and build governing majorities from shifting factions rather than from iron party control. It’s a story about where our party system came from – and a primer for the coalition politics it may be heading back towards.

___

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Richard Townsend

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage made headlines this week with his attempt to introduce a Ten Minute Rule Bill to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposal was swiftly defeated by a coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent MPs, with Lib Dem leader Ed Davey leading the opposition.

_____

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

_____

In this week’s episode, we look at why Farage’s bill was always doomed to fail, and why Labour’s reluctance to formally whip against it raised eyebrows. Does that hesitation point to a deeper problem – has Labour really absorbed the lesson of the Caerphilly Senedd by-election, where Plaid Cymru took a Labour seat, Reform surged, and Labour’s vote collapsed? If progressive voters are prepared to rally behind whichever party can stop Reform, should Labour be bolder in confronting them directly?

We also consider Lucy Powell’s decisive victory as Labour’s new deputy leader – an unusual role outside government that frees her from collective responsibility and could make her a key power broker in what promises to be a gruelling budget season. How far can a tough fiscal package stretch manifesto promises before trust breaks, and is Keir Starmer in danger of drifting into a “Clegg zone” of broken-promise backlash?

The discussion then turns to the Speaker’s Conference reports on the abuse and intimidation faced by MPs and candidates. Guest Sofia Collignon, from Queen Mary University of London, outlines the full spectrum of harassment – from online threats to in-person intimidation – and explains why women and minority candidates are often targeted most. She explores what could genuinely make a difference: stronger accountability for social media platforms, a dedicated national policing unit, clearer party responsibility for campaign conduct, and improved citizenship education. Drawing on international examples, she argues for firm action that protects democratic participation without shielding politicians from legitimate public scrutiny.

A listener’s question about Westminster Hall sparks a discussion about the history and purpose of the Commons’ parallel debating chamber. Ruth and Mark trace its origins to the late 1990s, when it was created to give MPs more space to raise issues and hold ministers to account. They explain why no votes are taken there, how it provides a forum for petitions, select committee reports and backbench debates, and why some of the Commons’ most-watched debates now happen there.

_____

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Gareth Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, we explore how far Parliament can go in holding members of the Royal Family to account, as pressure grows for MPs to scrutinise Prince Andrew’s finances and royal titles. We ask whether Nigel Farage should get a right of reply at Prime Minister’s Questions amid his growing prominence, and examine Labour’s reshuffle of select committee posts and calls for greater transparency in how they’re filled. Plus, a look back at the rebuilding of the House of Commons Chamber, 75 years after its postwar reopening.

 ___

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

 ___

Normally Parliament steers clear of discussing the Royal Family but with Prince Andrew embroiled in the scandal around the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, there are increasing calls for MPs to act. Could he be called before a select committee to explain his finances and housing arrangements? Might Parliament legislate to strip him of his titles? Could he be removed from the line of succession to the Throne? To explore these issues we are joined by Dr Craig Prescott of Royal Holloway, University of London, an expert on the modern monarchy.

With other party leaders increasingly using Prime Minister’s Question Time to take potshots at Nigel Farage, does the Reform UK party leader deserve some kind of right of reply? The problem is that while he may have a commanding lead in the opinion polls, he leads a tiny contingent of MPs – so giving him a regular slot, ahead of other parties could create more problems than it solves. But there are ways he could hit back at his critics.

There’s also movement on the select committee corridor as Labour MPs elect new members to fill vacancies left by those promoted in the recent government reshuffle. But questions remain about the process itself. Should there be greater transparency around how parties decide who sits on these influential committees?

Finally, this month marks 75 years since the Commons Chamber re-opened after being destroyed in the Blitz. We speak to Dr Eloise Donnelly, Curator of Parliament’s Historic Furniture and Decorative Art, about how the reconstruction balanced modernisation with tradition. From a 15-year-old apprentice carving the Speaker’s Chair to German prisoners of war quarrying the stone, the story of the rebuild is one of craftsmanship, controversy and continuity. At the heart of a new exhibition marking the anniversary is a remarkable architectural scale model of the postwar Chamber — built in 1944 to help MPs visualise the design, exhibited across the country, lost for decades, but then rediscovered in Parliament. As Ruth reveals, this long-missing model solves a small but fascinating mystery in the Hansard Society’s own history.

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Gareth Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It’s been an extraordinary week in Westminster, with three separate ministerial statements to the Commons on the China spying case. To make sense of the confusion, Ruth and Mark are joined by Professor Mark Elliott, public law expert from Cambridge University, to unpack the sudden collapse of the prosecution against two alleged spies.

_____

Please help us improve Parliament Matters by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes. Go to: https://podcastsurvey.typeform.com/to/QxigqshS

_____

Newly released government witness statements revealed details about the claims of espionage inside MPs’ offices, yet the case was abruptly dropped amid tangled legal arguments over whether the Government had ever formally designated China as an “enemy state.”

So, what really happened? Was this a legal failure or a political fix to avoid a diplomatic crisis? And with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy now launching an inquiry, where does the story go next?

Plus, as the parliamentary season re-opens after the party conference break, Ruth and Mark look at the elephant traps ahead for the Government, including the Budget (Mark wonders why anyone in the Government thinks it is a good idea to “live-brainstorm” tax raising ideas), the lingering row over the Afghan data leak and superinjunction, the long-promised vote about the future of multi-billion pound restoration and renewal of Parliament and the steady drip of terrible local election results chipping away at Labour morale.

And finally, the latest developments on the assisted dying legislation which is now facing scrutiny by a special Lords select committee. We go through the membership and the balance of opinion on what could be a very important body. If the subsequent debates on the bill over-run, Ministers could face a legislative logjam in the Upper House.

________

🎓 Learn more using our resources for the issues mentioned in this episode.

❓ Send us your questions about Parliament:

✅ Subscribe to our newsletter.

📱 Follow us across social media @HansardSociety / @hansardsociety.bsky.social

£ - Support the Hansard Society and this podcast by making a donation today.

Parliament Matters is a Hansard Society production supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Presenters: Mark D’Arcy and Ruth Fox

Producer: Gareth Jones

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.